I have looked at things I have said in the past, from time to time. I have almost never used bad grammar, typed in extreme haste, or written anything that looks 'idiotic' to me later. If anything, it sometimes looks a little overblown and too verbose.

Of course, I have changed my opinion on things, but there are many things I haven't changed my opinion about. Among these are the distastefulness of rigid, dogmatic thinking, the perpetration of fallacy as fact, and especially the practice of dissimulating - as the saying goes 'don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining'. On some level, I consider combating these as a sort of duty - right now our country is going to hell largely because so few are upholding standards of basic reasoning and intellectual honesty.

To put it more simply, we are practically drowning in bullshit these days. Unlike you, when someone offers up a steaming heap of it, I'm not that concerned about jewels of wisdom being buried within, and I'm definitely not interested in pretending it's a delicious dessert confection. I'm interested in calling it out for what it is. Regardless of his or your magnanamous intent, your characterization of what he was doing as a 'simple declaration of belief' was simply more dissembling, as is your characterization of what I am doing as a semi-literate, "quick reaction" for my own emotional satisfaction. I don't think useful inquiry can proceed from lies.

As far as the sample questions you've provided, I don't see the relevance, and I question your sincerity in bringing them up. Nothing is stopping you from ignoring the argument and asking them. You could have asked them by now if you were truly interested... technically you still haven't. Instead, you've only brought them up as a hypothetical to try to paint me as a philistine as part of your own argument.